![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The Internet Movie Database does not qualify as a source for the film's release date. IMDb always attaches a release year to all future films on the site, despite no announcement to support it. The existing Variety citations do not make any mention of the release date, so unless there is a follow-up citation, the release date has yet to be announced. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)It would be good to include that an identical film has already been made in Germany - approx 3-4 years ago. 193.134.254.145 07:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Allison 26.06.07
I don't think it's a good idea to list previous similar films in the newest film article -- it's clearly recentism and attempts to promote older film articles with this on-the-rise film article. If anything, a list of films related to July 20 Plot should be provided on that article, because Valkyrie is a stand-alone production; it's not related to the other films except in topic. Like I've mentioned, there's a more suitable place for that. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone add a Synopsis section based on the synopsis paragraph in this? The reference is already used in the section for a few new cast members. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 11:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
These are from the German newspaper Der Spiegel, which may have more detail than current citations.
Should compare these to the Variety citations to see if there isn't any extra information. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
More headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 03:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Tom Cruise's Valkyrie should be quite a ride - Probably too bloggish, but just placing it here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Headlines to include. In particular, the People.com citation mentions that Cruise took on the role based on his similarity with the protagonist's profile. As a result, we could implement this photo to support that text in Production. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Headlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
According to IMDB as of 7/20/07, the movie's title has changed to "Rubicon". Should the article be update now, or later after it has been confirmed with other, more reliable sources?
I'm not sure, Eickenberg, but I think we "fixed" IMDb. I submitted your information to IMDb, and now IMDb shows Valkyrie again. Could be coincidence, too. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
In updating the new cast entries with a better citation than MonstersandCritics.com, I also noted German newspapers' continued criticism of Cruise beyond the initial confusion before the start of production. So I've started a "German response" section that will probably be the norm, and I've attempted to write it to be as balanced as possible. I imported a paragraph from Production to German response, as the confusion has better placement in the latter than the former, it seemed. If there is any concerns about a balanced perspective or the accuracy of any of the information, feel free to initiate discussion here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably synthesis to mention it here, but the release date of 8-8-08 cannot be a coincidence, because L. Ron Hubbard was obsessed with Eights and zeros: note the Scientology books Scientology: 88, Scientology 8-80, Scientology 8-8008, and Scientology 0-8. wikipediatrix 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Is Patrick Wilson in this or did IMDb get it wrong. He's been listed as starring in this for a while now, but it seems like this contradicts him starring in the Watchmen. annoynmous 04:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Small note to close this discussion: Patrick Wilson was originally attached to Valkyrie, but due to reasons explained in the article, he had to drop out. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
A minor point, but as it has not yet been determined which roles are the most prominent, would alphabetical order not be the most logical next choice? Best regards, Steve T • C 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I've re-organized part of the cast list to adhere to what was mentioned above, though I wasn't sure how to sort people like Eddie Izzard, Tom Wilkinson, and Stephen Fry. Another interesting issue -- when I describe the roles, should I use past or present tense? The citations for the roles' descriptions may be historical and not cinematical, so I wasn't sure if the descriptions I added for the plotters were appropriate. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
There still appears to be some confusion. A quick hunt on the Google News archive lists several recent stories which state the July release date (note, this is not a comprehensive list):
http://www.cinematical.com/2007/09/14/valkyrie-gets-the-ok-to-shoot-at-historic-german-site/ http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/09/05/first-look-the-7-conspirators-of-valkyrie/
However, just as many cite August:
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008519781 http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2152770,00.html
Where was the August date originally sourced from? Ah, never mind, I see it. Best regards,
Steve
T •
C
08:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the descriptions of Ludwig Beck and Friedrich Olbricht from "Nazi General" back to to "German General". Please do not change this back unless you are able to provide a reference that shows that they were members of the NSDAP. If they were not members of the NSDAP, then they were not Nazis.
Compare with how they are described in their own Wikipedia articles:
Ludwig August Theodor Beck (June 29, 1880 – July 21, 1944) was a German general and the Chief of the General Staff of the Oberkommando des Heeres during the early years of the Nazi regime in Germany before World War II.
Friedrich Olbricht (4 October 1888 – 21 July 1944) was a German general and one of the plotters involved in the attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler at the Wolfsschanze in East Prussia on 20 July 1944.
Rubisco 12:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Nazi is a political affiliation. Nazi with a lower case "n" means one who adhered to the ideology. Nazi with a capital "N" means one who is a "card carrying Nazi" who were part of the party.
So, was he a nazi or Nazi? Or neither?
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 ( talk) 05:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Staufenberg and his fellowers did not plan Operation Valkyrie, they modified it. Operation Valkyrie (or Walküre) was an operational plan made by the general staff to subdue unrests among the forced labourers with the use of reserve, educational, guard, and local stationed units of the Wehrmacht. The modification was intended to be used against SS-troops and regime-loyal units of the army after the successful assassination of Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.42.82 ( talk) 09:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There has been extremely unnecessary elaboration on the title of the film. My suggestion is to rewrite the Premise section based on the official synopsis, to which a link has been provided in the above section. Clarify the difference between Operation Valkyrie and the July 20 Plot within the constraints of the content provided there. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) - Sets and props donated to the German Armed Forces' Museum of Military History -
Steve
T •
C
14:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)The following (cited) passage was added to the #Release section:
Other reports stated that the release has been pushed back again in order to re-shoot scenes, because test audiences were unimpressed with parts of the film.
This is something new, something we haven't heard before. It came from the lead paragraph of an article in German publication Der Spiegel ( 1). The article proper explains:
The release... has been delayed... because it failed to impress audiences in test viewings in its current form, according to media reports.
This is something slightly different. "According to media reports" it says. So it's not a secondary source in this instance, but a tertiary one. We should instead find the secondary sources to quote. The problem arises in actually finding them. According to searches at Google News , The Times ( 2) is the only serious outlet which has reported anything like this. Others parrot it, but it's significant that they either directly credit The Times as their source, or in some cases plagiarise the text wholesale. And while The Times is usually credible, we have a problem using its article as the source because it doesn't mention that reshoots are occurring because of poor test screenings. What it actually says is:
Valkyrie... has so far left test audiences unimpressed. The quality of Cruise's German accent was widely commented on. The film has also had to have reshoots after footage was damaged in labs.
And unfortunately for The Times, there haven't been any test screenings, because the film isn't even completed. What The Times really means by this can be determined from looking at the second sentence: "The quality of Cruise's German accent..." What The Times is actually doing is parroting and putting its own spin on pre-existing reports which relayed that the film "has already been panned by critics who have had a sneak peek". These in turn can be sourced to very well publicised comments from bloggers and gossip pages which appeared after the film's first trailer was released. Comments from people such as Roger Friedman at Fox News ( 3), who criticised various aspects of the trailer, and Cruise's lack of a German accent (you'll note this 'fact' has become inverted in the telling by the time The Times gets to it).
To summarise: even cursory check of the Google News results will reveal the timeline:
Even taking that at face value, Der Spiegel's story is still cited to "media reports", of which I cannot find one. Until this is either confirmed (or denied), the line should be removed from the article. All the best, Steve T • C 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
An AP article at Yahoo! states that the side-by-side profiles of Stauffenberg and Cruise released by United Artists was doctored. We currently have the doctored photograph in the Wikipedia article, so it may need to be removed or re-implemented elsewhere as part of marketing. What do others think? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I just added information about the film's new poster and trailer based on a Variety article. I think that the new content would permit the inclusion of the current poster image in the "Release" section, but repeating the image seemed a little silly. I checked to see if there were other posters like at MPDB, but they were either foreign or seemed fake. I was thinking that as the film gets closer, we could replace the poster in the infobox with whatever new poster comes out, and move the first one down to the "Release" section. Just putting this idea out early. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times published an article about United Artists and Valkyrie. I've tried to incorporate as much of this as possible, but it has been tricky to rearrange details. There are numerous elements: studio's expectations, release date changes, changing of the guard, and trailer/poster details. Feedback would be greatly appreciated to make sure that this section can flow. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking about using this for the "Marketing" section to show how tie into the poor reception about Tom Cruise's eye-patched character. Does anyone think this is too soon? It seems like the Cast section has a decent group image (though we could shore up critical commentary), so maybe the image could be used for this section. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 20:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The History Channel is showing a documentary called Valkyrie: The Plot to Kill Hitler...
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help), "The Valkyrie documentary also features newsreel footage from the era and insights from historian Richard Evans from Cambridge. Christopher McQuarrie, the screenwriter for the Cruise film, talks about the challenges he faced in adapting the material for the screen."{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help), "There has been so much Sturm und Drang surrounding the making and selling of the upcoming feature film Valkyrie that the story of the attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler is in danger of being overshadowed by more pressing questions such as whether the film will save United Artists or what it will do to Tom Cruise's asking price or why Kenneth Branagh seems to be making a second career out of playing Nazis. Fortunately, History is there to ensure that this does not happen. Valkyrie: The Plot to Kill Hitler, which airs Monday night, has a definite Valkyrie tie-in, including so many clips and behind-the-scenes moments that the term "marketing vehicle" does come to mind."Does anyone think that this is worth mentioning in the article? If so, where? It's not studio-sponsored as far as I can tell, but the History Channel is definitely coinciding this documentary with the feature film. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The History channel has very little to do with History these days-Mostly airing conspiracy theorys and UFO-Bermuda triangle phychosis. This sorry effort to whitewash history will not gain much traction. Germany (THE PEOPLE) gave Hitler almost undivided and fanatical support up to the bitter end resulting in the wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews and 12 million Russians. Remember without the almost universal German support that Hitler and his Nazi party enjoyed there could be no WW-II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.199.66 ( talk) 19:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Would like to know why the listing of Tom Hollander as Colonel Heinz Brandt keeps getting deleted. Not only is he listed as such on IMDB, but there are stills and video of him in the part on the official site.
Also, I don't believe Stephen Fry is involved with the film any longer either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.7.55 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, December 3, 2008
Headlines. I'll try to implement them myself when I have a chunk of time. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we could phase out some citations using this article. The article also talks about production in retrospect, so should the details be worked into the "Production" section for a historical perspective, or would it be better off in the "Release" section? I'm leaning toward the first option... — Erik ( talk • contrib) 18:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
What a merry-go-round. Steve T • C 22:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article, not sure how to implement. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 06:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Two headlines to use. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 13:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the film will be out in less than a month, I was thinking that maybe we could attempt some foresight in structuring the article. It is more than likely that there will be German response to the film as a final product, like there was one to its production. I was wondering, how should we structure them? Together in the same section, or separately? Here are a few options:
Another possible section or subsection is an evaluation of historical accuracy... I think it could be a separate section since Germans and non-Germans can weigh in about this, and we could guide any relevant German historical analysis to this kind of section. We'd keep German audience and critic responses in one of the above sections or subsections. Sorry if this sounds too confusing! Figured it would be good to tackle this so we don't shift so much during a time of busy coverage. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller recently re-sectioned the article, but I am not sure if I favor it. "Perception" strikes me as pretty vague. I think it's an umbrella for too many sections... any chance we can pursue one of the above options instead? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple additional reviews which could be added to the "Critical reception" subsection, listed at Rotten Tomatoes. However, I am not sure EmanuelLevy.Com or Screen International are the best of WP:RS-type sources. Will defer to what others think on this. I am sure that in the coming days/weeks there will be more reviews from more mainstream film critic sources within the entertainment industry. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 07:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the "Release" section talks about how the New York premiere was a private screening and that there was an attempted protest. I searched around for solid coverage about this event, but I could not find anything good. The FOX News article touches on it, and the MSNBC article is from a gossip column, which I am wary to include (especially since we rejected usage of the same source a few discussions above about early reaction to the film). Do other editors think that this event warrants mention in the article? It does not seem to hold a lot of encyclopedic water. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 04:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
It does not have to do with reviews, but there is a general sense of antagonism from these gossip columns toward the film. Mail Online completely contrasts later reports that the film was not universally panned. I checked Access World News and Lexis-Nexis Academic, but this does not extend beyond these smearing attempts by these columns. We have solid retrospective coverage about negative reaction to production and concerns over marketing. Let's not give undue weight to this events reserved for gossip columns. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Additional source: "Punkt 12, 16. Dezember". Punkt 12. 2008-12-16. RTL Television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.216.101 ( talk • contribs) 13:27, December 29, 2008
It is more correct to list them as "The National Socialists" or "The Nazis" than "The Reich" because the Resistance IS fighting for the Reich. The Reich is the country, part of Germany's name. It has been a Reich for the last 73 years when they launch the coup attempt. The Resistance are loyal patriots to the Reich, trying to save it from the Nazi maniacs. Hence, it is morally and politically proper to not remove their place as patriots of the Reich by giving the Nazis sole claim to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.175.151 ( talk) 04:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
How historically accurate is it? Badagnani ( talk) 00:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Not me of course. I've watched this movie and really enjoyed it but I don't have the interest to work on the article about the actual person: Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg. However, I think we should keep that article in mind while working on this one. The man's wiki article should be at least a GA before this one is. N'est-ce pas? Well, yeah. Kein Aber! Manhattan Samurai ( talk) 12:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
While Variety is a good, reputable source, the author has to be the biggest tool to say that a 30 million open on a film that cost 150 million (budget + marketing) is a victory. This is going to be a huge loss for both. Any other, more accurate articles on the film's release? Lukeatomic ( talk) 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've started a "Historical accuracy" section to see if we can foster contributions from editors who stop by, since I think that potential resources may not be easily found in Google News Searches or be reported by movie websites. I've started with a quote from Hoffmann, who may be a little biased due to his role as consultant, but it's a start. Should we say anything about the filmmakers' intent in being historically accurate with this film? I know that there are some quotes, but I'd like to keep expression of their intent fairly limited for the sake of balance. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
the error in Valkyrie action are worth to be shown. May be somebody will learn out of history! But in Germany there are papers who guess it#s just a career trick, to make another holocaust film. Living on in a nazistructure. Calling themselves democrats and chew.....-- 88.77.202.89 ( talk) 11:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There was some edit warring earlier today about presenting the general consensus of the film by critics. The original wording was "received mixed reviews" with Metacritic as the citation. Attempts were made to re-word "mixed" otherwise, and eventually resulted in the removal of the sentence until a more clearly worded consensus could be found. I restored "mixed reviews" based on The New York Times saying this. However, this was put in quotation marks, and I do not think it should be in quotation marks... this is usually done when expressing one's opinion or using colorful language. We would not say the film got "negative" reviews or "positive" reviews, so we should not say "mixed", either. Thoughts about that? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I just removed a link to an LA Times article that described the movie's reviews as "respectable", not out of malice but because it seemed like hearsay: we already have an objective (I hope) overview from Metacritic and RT. Does that seem reasonable? 206.29.77.82 ( talk) 15:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
frankly, my dear, i dont give a damn what some guy from some newspaper i will never read (and that will probably be out of business next year) says about a movie.
so please tell me why all these movie critics from various obscure magazines are 'notable' enough to be in wikipedia...
to the absolutely ridiculous point now, where the article on the july 20th plot is barely as large as the article on this movie about the july 20th plot. please tell me how these quotes from these people are 'notable'.
why not include comments from imdb.com commenters and message board people, they have about as much weight as random movie critics???
mostly, though, im just trying to ask, WHY IS THIS IN THERE. who GIVES A CRAP. honestly.
additionally, the 'rotten tomato' rating is listed.. WHO CARES. why not list the IMDB rating, thats what the 'general viewer' thinks, and isnt that more important than the critics? is it their job to tell us what is good and bad, or to give us insight into film (like Ebert does) so we can make up our own minds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it fair and reasonable that a range of positive and negative responses to the film are listed. Further, Rotten Tomatoes is not a group of "random critics". Rotten tomatoes is used as it is based on the ratings of professional film reviewers/critics, who have their credentials vetted with criteria including:
1) Membership of a professional association
2) A Minimum of 50 published reviews with a byline
3). Currently employed as a film critic, not as a freelance or staff writer.
[2].
Such criteria means that reviewers understand the social and legal impact of their work, (having studied ethics and law), as well as investing their own credibility and reputations- they're not random anonymous bloggers. On that note, I shall sign my post, which actually contains my name.
Paul Roberton (
talk)
14:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Just read an article that mentioned the producers of Valkyrie could be in legal trouble with the owner of Hitler's globe, who apparently had its likeness copyrighted and is mad about a replica being used in the film without his permission. This would probably be something interesting to mention somewhere in the article (don't really have time to write anything up myself right now). Here's the original link. – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
...are not "original research". Hitler's ideologies that the English were "an Aryan but misguided people and nation" and that it was Nazi Germany's destiny for Hitler to take the place of Trevelyan and extend the Holocaust to be a Second Celtic Holocaust are well documented.
"N I N A" is a cultural codeword among North American Celts meaning "No Irish Need Apply". It is a reference to the treatment of arriving Celts in the Boston area (that persons of Celtic origin be denied employment) during the First Celtic Holocaust.
The "Black and Tans" were an auxiliary of the English army used to subjugate the Irish during the 1916-1921 "uprising". Black and Tans often would go door-to-door in Irish neighborhoods using their bayonets to kill persons hiding from them in rolled-up mattresses. The Black-and-Tans were also responsible for the Croke Park Massacre. Hahbie 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You are completely right and accurate in what you state. I was and am totally incorrect, and wrong, on all points, irrevocable, from all standpoints, and in all contexts. I capitulate to the superior intellect, and authority--which is, in a word--you. I am not fit to grovel at your feet. 68.56.90.231 ( talk) 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, you are harassing me, because you have the power, and I don't. 68.56.90.231 ( talk) 00:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
[3] 68.56.90.231 ( talk) 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the detail about the title card because it is outside the context of this historical thriller. There were many nuanced details revealed via title cards at the end, but the last major event of the film itself were the series of executions. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
← Rewrote the range of names as prose. List appears less indiscriminate now. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Now BBC says, "The 46-year-old [Tom Cruise] will be hoping the film is better received than it was in Germany, after critics slammed it." This is in contradiction with what The New York Times said about German critics, so we may need to revise the consensus. It will be easier retrospectively, but we may need to reflect that The New York Times said one thing and BBC said another. Just putting this out here for now. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this is frustrating...
How do we reconcile all this to accurately reflect the German response? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have prepared what the culturally important german magazine "Die Zeit " has written about Valkyrie, and about scientology as well, maybe we should add it to the article. What do you think about it??? This is where the text can be found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Valkyrie. If you agree to add I will provide a reference. Thank you.
Sha-Sanio (
talk)
16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing the following reviews because I feel that the first three paragraphs of "American critics" adequately cover critical reception of the film. Here's the diff for the removal, and below are the links to the reviews if people think they may have merit:
Please share your thoughts! I think we should switch focus on fine-tuning the consensus of German critics, as seen in the discussion above. Other European reviews could be used, too. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor added to the article: "Other locations for government buildings with typical Nazi architecture included the local Luftwaffe district headquarters (later used by Berlin Brigade) and the Berlin fair grounds." Sources used were this and this, which do not qualify as reliable sources. Can we find reliable sources for these locations? Depending on how important they are to the film, it may not be necessary to list them as we identify some major locations already. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It's plain obvious in the movie which locations were used, besides Reich Air Ministry Building. Messe Berlin, with dozens of flagpoles in front of it, was used instead of the plain Haus des Rundfunks radio building just on the other side of the street, and Tempelhof with its large curved terminal stood in for the proper rural Rangsdorf airfield. Listed in the credits, too. -- Matthead Discuß 23:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Search valkyrie location:Germany in Google News Search with "Last day" or "Past week" criteria to find similar headlines as the week goes on. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I am thinking that we could include an "Other European critics" subsection under "Critical reception" on the basis that their opinions may be more relevant than most since Valkyrie is very much related to the European theater of World War II. What do others think? Reviews are linked above. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The Internet Movie Database does not qualify as a source for the film's release date. IMDb always attaches a release year to all future films on the site, despite no announcement to support it. The existing Variety citations do not make any mention of the release date, so unless there is a follow-up citation, the release date has yet to be announced. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)It would be good to include that an identical film has already been made in Germany - approx 3-4 years ago. 193.134.254.145 07:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Allison 26.06.07
I don't think it's a good idea to list previous similar films in the newest film article -- it's clearly recentism and attempts to promote older film articles with this on-the-rise film article. If anything, a list of films related to July 20 Plot should be provided on that article, because Valkyrie is a stand-alone production; it's not related to the other films except in topic. Like I've mentioned, there's a more suitable place for that. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone add a Synopsis section based on the synopsis paragraph in this? The reference is already used in the section for a few new cast members. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 11:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
These are from the German newspaper Der Spiegel, which may have more detail than current citations.
Should compare these to the Variety citations to see if there isn't any extra information. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
More headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 03:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Tom Cruise's Valkyrie should be quite a ride - Probably too bloggish, but just placing it here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Headlines to include. In particular, the People.com citation mentions that Cruise took on the role based on his similarity with the protagonist's profile. As a result, we could implement this photo to support that text in Production. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Headlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
According to IMDB as of 7/20/07, the movie's title has changed to "Rubicon". Should the article be update now, or later after it has been confirmed with other, more reliable sources?
I'm not sure, Eickenberg, but I think we "fixed" IMDb. I submitted your information to IMDb, and now IMDb shows Valkyrie again. Could be coincidence, too. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
In updating the new cast entries with a better citation than MonstersandCritics.com, I also noted German newspapers' continued criticism of Cruise beyond the initial confusion before the start of production. So I've started a "German response" section that will probably be the norm, and I've attempted to write it to be as balanced as possible. I imported a paragraph from Production to German response, as the confusion has better placement in the latter than the former, it seemed. If there is any concerns about a balanced perspective or the accuracy of any of the information, feel free to initiate discussion here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably synthesis to mention it here, but the release date of 8-8-08 cannot be a coincidence, because L. Ron Hubbard was obsessed with Eights and zeros: note the Scientology books Scientology: 88, Scientology 8-80, Scientology 8-8008, and Scientology 0-8. wikipediatrix 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Is Patrick Wilson in this or did IMDb get it wrong. He's been listed as starring in this for a while now, but it seems like this contradicts him starring in the Watchmen. annoynmous 04:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Small note to close this discussion: Patrick Wilson was originally attached to Valkyrie, but due to reasons explained in the article, he had to drop out. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
A minor point, but as it has not yet been determined which roles are the most prominent, would alphabetical order not be the most logical next choice? Best regards, Steve T • C 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I've re-organized part of the cast list to adhere to what was mentioned above, though I wasn't sure how to sort people like Eddie Izzard, Tom Wilkinson, and Stephen Fry. Another interesting issue -- when I describe the roles, should I use past or present tense? The citations for the roles' descriptions may be historical and not cinematical, so I wasn't sure if the descriptions I added for the plotters were appropriate. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
There still appears to be some confusion. A quick hunt on the Google News archive lists several recent stories which state the July release date (note, this is not a comprehensive list):
http://www.cinematical.com/2007/09/14/valkyrie-gets-the-ok-to-shoot-at-historic-german-site/ http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/09/05/first-look-the-7-conspirators-of-valkyrie/
However, just as many cite August:
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008519781 http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2152770,00.html
Where was the August date originally sourced from? Ah, never mind, I see it. Best regards,
Steve
T •
C
08:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the descriptions of Ludwig Beck and Friedrich Olbricht from "Nazi General" back to to "German General". Please do not change this back unless you are able to provide a reference that shows that they were members of the NSDAP. If they were not members of the NSDAP, then they were not Nazis.
Compare with how they are described in their own Wikipedia articles:
Ludwig August Theodor Beck (June 29, 1880 – July 21, 1944) was a German general and the Chief of the General Staff of the Oberkommando des Heeres during the early years of the Nazi regime in Germany before World War II.
Friedrich Olbricht (4 October 1888 – 21 July 1944) was a German general and one of the plotters involved in the attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler at the Wolfsschanze in East Prussia on 20 July 1944.
Rubisco 12:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Nazi is a political affiliation. Nazi with a lower case "n" means one who adhered to the ideology. Nazi with a capital "N" means one who is a "card carrying Nazi" who were part of the party.
So, was he a nazi or Nazi? Or neither?
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 ( talk) 05:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Staufenberg and his fellowers did not plan Operation Valkyrie, they modified it. Operation Valkyrie (or Walküre) was an operational plan made by the general staff to subdue unrests among the forced labourers with the use of reserve, educational, guard, and local stationed units of the Wehrmacht. The modification was intended to be used against SS-troops and regime-loyal units of the army after the successful assassination of Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.42.82 ( talk) 09:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There has been extremely unnecessary elaboration on the title of the film. My suggestion is to rewrite the Premise section based on the official synopsis, to which a link has been provided in the above section. Clarify the difference between Operation Valkyrie and the July 20 Plot within the constraints of the content provided there. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 22:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) - Sets and props donated to the German Armed Forces' Museum of Military History -
Steve
T •
C
14:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)The following (cited) passage was added to the #Release section:
Other reports stated that the release has been pushed back again in order to re-shoot scenes, because test audiences were unimpressed with parts of the film.
This is something new, something we haven't heard before. It came from the lead paragraph of an article in German publication Der Spiegel ( 1). The article proper explains:
The release... has been delayed... because it failed to impress audiences in test viewings in its current form, according to media reports.
This is something slightly different. "According to media reports" it says. So it's not a secondary source in this instance, but a tertiary one. We should instead find the secondary sources to quote. The problem arises in actually finding them. According to searches at Google News , The Times ( 2) is the only serious outlet which has reported anything like this. Others parrot it, but it's significant that they either directly credit The Times as their source, or in some cases plagiarise the text wholesale. And while The Times is usually credible, we have a problem using its article as the source because it doesn't mention that reshoots are occurring because of poor test screenings. What it actually says is:
Valkyrie... has so far left test audiences unimpressed. The quality of Cruise's German accent was widely commented on. The film has also had to have reshoots after footage was damaged in labs.
And unfortunately for The Times, there haven't been any test screenings, because the film isn't even completed. What The Times really means by this can be determined from looking at the second sentence: "The quality of Cruise's German accent..." What The Times is actually doing is parroting and putting its own spin on pre-existing reports which relayed that the film "has already been panned by critics who have had a sneak peek". These in turn can be sourced to very well publicised comments from bloggers and gossip pages which appeared after the film's first trailer was released. Comments from people such as Roger Friedman at Fox News ( 3), who criticised various aspects of the trailer, and Cruise's lack of a German accent (you'll note this 'fact' has become inverted in the telling by the time The Times gets to it).
To summarise: even cursory check of the Google News results will reveal the timeline:
Even taking that at face value, Der Spiegel's story is still cited to "media reports", of which I cannot find one. Until this is either confirmed (or denied), the line should be removed from the article. All the best, Steve T • C 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
An AP article at Yahoo! states that the side-by-side profiles of Stauffenberg and Cruise released by United Artists was doctored. We currently have the doctored photograph in the Wikipedia article, so it may need to be removed or re-implemented elsewhere as part of marketing. What do others think? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I just added information about the film's new poster and trailer based on a Variety article. I think that the new content would permit the inclusion of the current poster image in the "Release" section, but repeating the image seemed a little silly. I checked to see if there were other posters like at MPDB, but they were either foreign or seemed fake. I was thinking that as the film gets closer, we could replace the poster in the infobox with whatever new poster comes out, and move the first one down to the "Release" section. Just putting this idea out early. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times published an article about United Artists and Valkyrie. I've tried to incorporate as much of this as possible, but it has been tricky to rearrange details. There are numerous elements: studio's expectations, release date changes, changing of the guard, and trailer/poster details. Feedback would be greatly appreciated to make sure that this section can flow. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking about using this for the "Marketing" section to show how tie into the poor reception about Tom Cruise's eye-patched character. Does anyone think this is too soon? It seems like the Cast section has a decent group image (though we could shore up critical commentary), so maybe the image could be used for this section. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 20:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The History Channel is showing a documentary called Valkyrie: The Plot to Kill Hitler...
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help), "The Valkyrie documentary also features newsreel footage from the era and insights from historian Richard Evans from Cambridge. Christopher McQuarrie, the screenwriter for the Cruise film, talks about the challenges he faced in adapting the material for the screen."{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help), "There has been so much Sturm und Drang surrounding the making and selling of the upcoming feature film Valkyrie that the story of the attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler is in danger of being overshadowed by more pressing questions such as whether the film will save United Artists or what it will do to Tom Cruise's asking price or why Kenneth Branagh seems to be making a second career out of playing Nazis. Fortunately, History is there to ensure that this does not happen. Valkyrie: The Plot to Kill Hitler, which airs Monday night, has a definite Valkyrie tie-in, including so many clips and behind-the-scenes moments that the term "marketing vehicle" does come to mind."Does anyone think that this is worth mentioning in the article? If so, where? It's not studio-sponsored as far as I can tell, but the History Channel is definitely coinciding this documentary with the feature film. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The History channel has very little to do with History these days-Mostly airing conspiracy theorys and UFO-Bermuda triangle phychosis. This sorry effort to whitewash history will not gain much traction. Germany (THE PEOPLE) gave Hitler almost undivided and fanatical support up to the bitter end resulting in the wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews and 12 million Russians. Remember without the almost universal German support that Hitler and his Nazi party enjoyed there could be no WW-II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.199.66 ( talk) 19:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Would like to know why the listing of Tom Hollander as Colonel Heinz Brandt keeps getting deleted. Not only is he listed as such on IMDB, but there are stills and video of him in the part on the official site.
Also, I don't believe Stephen Fry is involved with the film any longer either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.7.55 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, December 3, 2008
Headlines. I'll try to implement them myself when I have a chunk of time. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we could phase out some citations using this article. The article also talks about production in retrospect, so should the details be worked into the "Production" section for a historical perspective, or would it be better off in the "Release" section? I'm leaning toward the first option... — Erik ( talk • contrib) 18:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
What a merry-go-round. Steve T • C 22:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article, not sure how to implement. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 06:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Two headlines to use. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 13:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the film will be out in less than a month, I was thinking that maybe we could attempt some foresight in structuring the article. It is more than likely that there will be German response to the film as a final product, like there was one to its production. I was wondering, how should we structure them? Together in the same section, or separately? Here are a few options:
Another possible section or subsection is an evaluation of historical accuracy... I think it could be a separate section since Germans and non-Germans can weigh in about this, and we could guide any relevant German historical analysis to this kind of section. We'd keep German audience and critic responses in one of the above sections or subsections. Sorry if this sounds too confusing! Figured it would be good to tackle this so we don't shift so much during a time of busy coverage. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller recently re-sectioned the article, but I am not sure if I favor it. "Perception" strikes me as pretty vague. I think it's an umbrella for too many sections... any chance we can pursue one of the above options instead? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple additional reviews which could be added to the "Critical reception" subsection, listed at Rotten Tomatoes. However, I am not sure EmanuelLevy.Com or Screen International are the best of WP:RS-type sources. Will defer to what others think on this. I am sure that in the coming days/weeks there will be more reviews from more mainstream film critic sources within the entertainment industry. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 07:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the "Release" section talks about how the New York premiere was a private screening and that there was an attempted protest. I searched around for solid coverage about this event, but I could not find anything good. The FOX News article touches on it, and the MSNBC article is from a gossip column, which I am wary to include (especially since we rejected usage of the same source a few discussions above about early reaction to the film). Do other editors think that this event warrants mention in the article? It does not seem to hold a lot of encyclopedic water. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 04:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
It does not have to do with reviews, but there is a general sense of antagonism from these gossip columns toward the film. Mail Online completely contrasts later reports that the film was not universally panned. I checked Access World News and Lexis-Nexis Academic, but this does not extend beyond these smearing attempts by these columns. We have solid retrospective coverage about negative reaction to production and concerns over marketing. Let's not give undue weight to this events reserved for gossip columns. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Additional source: "Punkt 12, 16. Dezember". Punkt 12. 2008-12-16. RTL Television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.216.101 ( talk • contribs) 13:27, December 29, 2008
It is more correct to list them as "The National Socialists" or "The Nazis" than "The Reich" because the Resistance IS fighting for the Reich. The Reich is the country, part of Germany's name. It has been a Reich for the last 73 years when they launch the coup attempt. The Resistance are loyal patriots to the Reich, trying to save it from the Nazi maniacs. Hence, it is morally and politically proper to not remove their place as patriots of the Reich by giving the Nazis sole claim to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.175.151 ( talk) 04:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
How historically accurate is it? Badagnani ( talk) 00:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Not me of course. I've watched this movie and really enjoyed it but I don't have the interest to work on the article about the actual person: Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg. However, I think we should keep that article in mind while working on this one. The man's wiki article should be at least a GA before this one is. N'est-ce pas? Well, yeah. Kein Aber! Manhattan Samurai ( talk) 12:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
While Variety is a good, reputable source, the author has to be the biggest tool to say that a 30 million open on a film that cost 150 million (budget + marketing) is a victory. This is going to be a huge loss for both. Any other, more accurate articles on the film's release? Lukeatomic ( talk) 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've started a "Historical accuracy" section to see if we can foster contributions from editors who stop by, since I think that potential resources may not be easily found in Google News Searches or be reported by movie websites. I've started with a quote from Hoffmann, who may be a little biased due to his role as consultant, but it's a start. Should we say anything about the filmmakers' intent in being historically accurate with this film? I know that there are some quotes, but I'd like to keep expression of their intent fairly limited for the sake of balance. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
the error in Valkyrie action are worth to be shown. May be somebody will learn out of history! But in Germany there are papers who guess it#s just a career trick, to make another holocaust film. Living on in a nazistructure. Calling themselves democrats and chew.....-- 88.77.202.89 ( talk) 11:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There was some edit warring earlier today about presenting the general consensus of the film by critics. The original wording was "received mixed reviews" with Metacritic as the citation. Attempts were made to re-word "mixed" otherwise, and eventually resulted in the removal of the sentence until a more clearly worded consensus could be found. I restored "mixed reviews" based on The New York Times saying this. However, this was put in quotation marks, and I do not think it should be in quotation marks... this is usually done when expressing one's opinion or using colorful language. We would not say the film got "negative" reviews or "positive" reviews, so we should not say "mixed", either. Thoughts about that? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I just removed a link to an LA Times article that described the movie's reviews as "respectable", not out of malice but because it seemed like hearsay: we already have an objective (I hope) overview from Metacritic and RT. Does that seem reasonable? 206.29.77.82 ( talk) 15:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
frankly, my dear, i dont give a damn what some guy from some newspaper i will never read (and that will probably be out of business next year) says about a movie.
so please tell me why all these movie critics from various obscure magazines are 'notable' enough to be in wikipedia...
to the absolutely ridiculous point now, where the article on the july 20th plot is barely as large as the article on this movie about the july 20th plot. please tell me how these quotes from these people are 'notable'.
why not include comments from imdb.com commenters and message board people, they have about as much weight as random movie critics???
mostly, though, im just trying to ask, WHY IS THIS IN THERE. who GIVES A CRAP. honestly.
additionally, the 'rotten tomato' rating is listed.. WHO CARES. why not list the IMDB rating, thats what the 'general viewer' thinks, and isnt that more important than the critics? is it their job to tell us what is good and bad, or to give us insight into film (like Ebert does) so we can make up our own minds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it fair and reasonable that a range of positive and negative responses to the film are listed. Further, Rotten Tomatoes is not a group of "random critics". Rotten tomatoes is used as it is based on the ratings of professional film reviewers/critics, who have their credentials vetted with criteria including:
1) Membership of a professional association
2) A Minimum of 50 published reviews with a byline
3). Currently employed as a film critic, not as a freelance or staff writer.
[2].
Such criteria means that reviewers understand the social and legal impact of their work, (having studied ethics and law), as well as investing their own credibility and reputations- they're not random anonymous bloggers. On that note, I shall sign my post, which actually contains my name.
Paul Roberton (
talk)
14:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Just read an article that mentioned the producers of Valkyrie could be in legal trouble with the owner of Hitler's globe, who apparently had its likeness copyrighted and is mad about a replica being used in the film without his permission. This would probably be something interesting to mention somewhere in the article (don't really have time to write anything up myself right now). Here's the original link. – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
...are not "original research". Hitler's ideologies that the English were "an Aryan but misguided people and nation" and that it was Nazi Germany's destiny for Hitler to take the place of Trevelyan and extend the Holocaust to be a Second Celtic Holocaust are well documented.
"N I N A" is a cultural codeword among North American Celts meaning "No Irish Need Apply". It is a reference to the treatment of arriving Celts in the Boston area (that persons of Celtic origin be denied employment) during the First Celtic Holocaust.
The "Black and Tans" were an auxiliary of the English army used to subjugate the Irish during the 1916-1921 "uprising". Black and Tans often would go door-to-door in Irish neighborhoods using their bayonets to kill persons hiding from them in rolled-up mattresses. The Black-and-Tans were also responsible for the Croke Park Massacre. Hahbie 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You are completely right and accurate in what you state. I was and am totally incorrect, and wrong, on all points, irrevocable, from all standpoints, and in all contexts. I capitulate to the superior intellect, and authority--which is, in a word--you. I am not fit to grovel at your feet. 68.56.90.231 ( talk) 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, you are harassing me, because you have the power, and I don't. 68.56.90.231 ( talk) 00:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
[3] 68.56.90.231 ( talk) 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the detail about the title card because it is outside the context of this historical thriller. There were many nuanced details revealed via title cards at the end, but the last major event of the film itself were the series of executions. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
← Rewrote the range of names as prose. List appears less indiscriminate now. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Now BBC says, "The 46-year-old [Tom Cruise] will be hoping the film is better received than it was in Germany, after critics slammed it." This is in contradiction with what The New York Times said about German critics, so we may need to revise the consensus. It will be easier retrospectively, but we may need to reflect that The New York Times said one thing and BBC said another. Just putting this out here for now. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this is frustrating...
How do we reconcile all this to accurately reflect the German response? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have prepared what the culturally important german magazine "Die Zeit " has written about Valkyrie, and about scientology as well, maybe we should add it to the article. What do you think about it??? This is where the text can be found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Valkyrie. If you agree to add I will provide a reference. Thank you.
Sha-Sanio (
talk)
16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing the following reviews because I feel that the first three paragraphs of "American critics" adequately cover critical reception of the film. Here's the diff for the removal, and below are the links to the reviews if people think they may have merit:
Please share your thoughts! I think we should switch focus on fine-tuning the consensus of German critics, as seen in the discussion above. Other European reviews could be used, too. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor added to the article: "Other locations for government buildings with typical Nazi architecture included the local Luftwaffe district headquarters (later used by Berlin Brigade) and the Berlin fair grounds." Sources used were this and this, which do not qualify as reliable sources. Can we find reliable sources for these locations? Depending on how important they are to the film, it may not be necessary to list them as we identify some major locations already. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It's plain obvious in the movie which locations were used, besides Reich Air Ministry Building. Messe Berlin, with dozens of flagpoles in front of it, was used instead of the plain Haus des Rundfunks radio building just on the other side of the street, and Tempelhof with its large curved terminal stood in for the proper rural Rangsdorf airfield. Listed in the credits, too. -- Matthead Discuß 23:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Search valkyrie location:Germany in Google News Search with "Last day" or "Past week" criteria to find similar headlines as the week goes on. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 19:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I am thinking that we could include an "Other European critics" subsection under "Critical reception" on the basis that their opinions may be more relevant than most since Valkyrie is very much related to the European theater of World War II. What do others think? Reviews are linked above. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 14:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)